04-03-90 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 3, 1990 PAGE 6 7. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: Councilman Hunt reported Oakdale and Lake Elmo have a proposal, incorporating what each city must have. Oakdale's position is they must have ownership of all of Section 32 within the MUSA. Lake Elmo's position is there must be an agreement that will allow no annexation to ever occur in the future between the cities without the approval of both Council's. Lake Elmo has made a position they have to be reimbursed for all engineering and legal expenses, potentially $50,000, for any land that might transfer. For trade of Section 32, Oakdale has offered future financial consideration of current estimates of $250,000-$400,000 over a period of time that takes the land to be developed. There is approx. $91,000 of outstanding assessments which would come to Lake Elmo at that time. In terms of buffering, Wyn John, Planning Commission Member, has looked at some of the bufferng requirements which appear to be significant enough to protect Lake Elmo. It also appears that Oakdale's land uses are compatible along our borders in their Future Land Use Map. Hunt asked if there is any give from some of the Councilmembers from their past position in terms of the ability to transfer any land. Councilman Graves gave the following reasons for his position: Lake Elmo can develop long-term benefit from developing that land. I don't feel the development plan, one of high density, that Oakdale would use would necessarily be consistent with the type of land use we would like to see. Oakdale has demonstrated repeatedly their intention not to follow the One Percent.Rule. They would fill in the undevelopa.ble swamp land and build on it. Based on the Attorney's input, I. feel we would end up in court, again, with this "no annexation" petition. OTHER: - The City Council will each receive a copy of the Ci 8. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: Repeal of R-1 Zoning: Councilman Williams explained his intent in asking to bring the zoning ordinance into compliance with that there will be no more R-1 Zoning. This would R-1 land as an established recognized zone, but ste no more R-1 Zoning in the future. M/S/P Williams/Armstrong - to direct the city staff Resolution to amend the Zoning Ordinance to reflect will be no more R-1 rezoning after the amendment i; carried 5-0).